Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
SallyOD  
#1 Posted : 07 March 2018 15:15:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SallyOD

Just wondering what peoples thoughts/reactions are to the following:

One of my retained Clients has just bought a very small but struggling manufacturing unit to better control their spares/components. This new company has been paying a prominent H&S company as their H&S Competent person as well as conducting an annual audit.  On review it appears that these audits are almost the same for past three years, as the company had not addressed any of the corrective actions (including ones cited 'Major'.)) 

The company also paid for Legal Expense cover, which the old MD thought covered him, but which would obviously be negated as the company had not any addressed outstanding issues.

Having taken over the manufacturing company my retained Client then contacted the H&S company to terminate their services, only to be told they are tied into it for a further two years.  Even though they had not done anything but re-audit for three years and the contract was with the old owners, and there are now new Owners.

To be a competent person (according to Reg 7 MHSWR) employer has to appointone or more competent persons to assist him to comply....so now apparently just auditing and producing a report, without any follow up between audits is deemed to be a competent person.??   Surely this H&S company has a duty of care?  Or is it just all about the money?

Any constructive advice would be appreciated!

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 07 March 2018 16:33:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If they have a contract with two years to run sounds like poor due-dilligence (of acquistion) if you only find out when wishing to terminate a lengthy agreement that should have been disclosed before purchase.

Is the acqusition still trading under its old name (i.e. still a unique legal entity)?

Dependent upon the answer will dictate which routes and options you have

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
SallyOD on 20/03/2018(UTC), SallyOD on 20/03/2018(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 07 March 2018 16:33:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If they have a contract with two years to run sounds like poor due-dilligence (of acquistion) if you only find out when wishing to terminate a lengthy agreement that should have been disclosed before purchase.

Is the acqusition still trading under its old name (i.e. still a unique legal entity)?

Dependent upon the answer will dictate which routes and options you have

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
SallyOD on 20/03/2018(UTC), SallyOD on 20/03/2018(UTC)
toe  
#4 Posted : 07 March 2018 22:11:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

Originally Posted by: SallyOD Go to Quoted Post

 Even though they had not done anything but re-audit for three years and the contract was with the old owners, and there are now new Owners.

To be a competent person (according to Reg 7 MHSWR) employer has to appointone or more competent persons to assist him to comply....so now apparently just auditing and producing a report, without any follow up between audits is deemed to be a competent person.??   Surely this H&S company has a duty of care?  Or is it just all about the money?

Any constructive advice would be appreciated!

What do you expect from them? To purchase the PPE for you, to train your staff for you, to pay for and erect the barriers they may be suggesting, to substitute the dangerous chemical that you are using, etc. 

It is possible they are competent and they are giving you competent advice, and that is their duty of care to you. Yes – just auditing a producing a report may well be with the contract.

thanks 2 users thanked toe for this useful post.
mihaibertea on 12/03/2018(UTC), watcher on 12/03/2018(UTC)
RayRapp  
#5 Posted : 08 March 2018 08:19:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I can see both sides of this issue. I think the h&s consultants have done their job by providing audits with corrective actions. If the client does not implement the corrective measures identified in the audit, then on their head be it. There are many organisations who think simply having an audit is enough...it's not!

thanks 2 users thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
KEITH ROWSON on 08/03/2018(UTC), SallyOD on 20/03/2018(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#6 Posted : 08 March 2018 10:08:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

As above I can see both sides: The original target company seem to have taken a very tokenistic approach to Health and Safety, assuming having a consultant on board and legal insurance was enough. The consultants carry out an audit and establish that the company is lax and tell them this. The company do nothing so the next audit reveals that, surprise, nothing has changed. The consultants are possibly a bit laid back but as said they are only consultants and not responsible for actually running the business. They might have even seen this a bit of a cushy number as all they had to do each year was confirm that the company had not doing anything significant to improve its H&S performance. They were also contracted for some years work with no breaks in the contract (nice that)

So as the newbies what can you do? Well you can:

  • Break the contract with the consultants but you will probably end up having to pay the consultants off
  • Ignore the consultants and do your own thing
  • Look at the reports that the consultants have done and build on them. You might even be able to work with them on this for a bit

Which approach you take depends on what sort of relationship you can establish with the consultants.

thanks 3 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
KEITH ROWSON on 08/03/2018(UTC), mihaibertea on 12/03/2018(UTC), SallyOD on 20/03/2018(UTC)
Steve e ashton  
#7 Posted : 08 March 2018 11:07:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Read the contract... You may be surprised at the range of services which were made available to the small manufacturer. If they chose not to take advantage of those services (and many don't) then that is how the consultancy made its profit... If you are tied in for two years then you may choose to start using the services included, like free telephone advice, access to data sheets, assistance with assessments, investigation of incidents etc etc. It depends what's in the contract but if you become an uneconomic client then the consultancy is more likely to be willing to let you go early... Sad but true. Read the contract, and next time (as above) do some proper due diligence checks...
thanks 1 user thanked Steve e ashton for this useful post.
SallyOD on 20/03/2018(UTC)
SallyOD  
#8 Posted : 20 March 2018 18:57:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SallyOD

Thank you for the great responses.  Very much appreciated.

It just seemed such a shame that the old company did not make use of their 'Competent Person' service when paying thousands for it.  Being 'blind' by thinking that if anything went wrong or they had an HSE/LA visit, then the extra £££s they paid for 'legal expenses' would cover them for FFI, etc.....  Yet the Competent person company still took the extra fees even though they knew no corrective actions had been taken year after year.   Obviously they didnt read the small print.... 

Onwards and upwards.  They have been bought out by a better company, now to get to work on improving the culture and ploughing through the corrective actions!

thanks 1 user thanked SallyOD for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 21/03/2018(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.